The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER THREE: IDENTIFYING CASES FOR THE YOUTH COURTS

INTRODUCTION

3.1 This chapter describes the procedures through which potential cases were identified for the pilot Youth Courts and the outcomes of marking decisions of young people reported to the Procurator Fiscal. It also provides details of the number and characteristics of young people prosecuted in the Youth Courts.

IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL YOUTH COURT CASES

3.2 The police reported all cases involving 16 and 17 year olds (including co-accused) and appropriate young people under 16 years of age to the designated Youth Court Procurators Fiscal. A fast track arrangement had been put into place with a view to offenders gaining access to court supervised and monitored disposals within 2 months of the commission of the offence or date of detection. Reports for custody cases and undertakings were expected to be prepared and submitted by reporting officers prior to concluding their tour of duty ¹², with custody cases appearing in court on the next working day and undertakings appearing within 10 days ( or 14 in Airdrie). Reports involving non-arrested accused (cited cases) were expected to be prepared and submitted to the Procurator Fiscal within 28 days of the commission of the offence or date of detection. In both pilot sites these procedures appeared, from the perspectives of the professions involved, to be working well. Many associated the efficiency and smoothness of their operation with the existence of dedicated staffing arrangements and the experience of relevant personnel within the Procurator Fiscal office and police case management section. Interagency training for dedicated staff was reported to have encouraged cross-agency co-operation while having named and known staff across different agencies improved existing lines of communication.

3.3 As in all prosecutions, the Procurator Fiscal is the sole judge in deciding whether or not to prosecute and in what forum. In the Youth Court pilot areas the designated Procurators Fiscal reviewed all police reports in respect of 16 and 17 year olds to determine whether a referral to the Youth Court might be appropriate. The Procurator Fiscal would decide first whether there was sufficient evidence and it was in the public interest to prosecute. If a case was thought suitable for prosecution at the Sheriff Summary Court level the Procurator Fiscal would consider whether it was suitable for prosecution in the Youth Court. Jointly reported cases were discussed with the Reporter ¹³. More generally, any marking decisions in respect of potential Youth Court cases were made in liaison with the Reporter, social work department and the police to ensure that relevant background information was considered. Co-accused of any age of alleged offenders marked for prosecution in the Youth Court would also be prosecuted in that forum.

3.4 The target group for the Youth Courts was intended to include alleged offenders aged 16 or 17 years (and appropriate 15 year olds) who were resident within North or South Lanarkshire and who would otherwise be prosecuted in Hamilton or Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court. In Hamilton, young people with at least 3 separate incidents of alleged offending that had resulted in criminal charges in the previous 6 months were deemed to meet the Youth Court 'persistency criterion'. However, there was also flexibility for cases to be prosecuted in the Youth Court if the alleged offender's contextual background and circumstances suggested that such a course of action was appropriate to enhance community safety and reduce the risk of re-offending. In Airdrie a similar approach was adopted, although the 'persistency criterion' was not formally applied.

3.5 Professional respondents in both pilot sites were generally of the view that the target group for the Youth Court was appropriate, though some suggested that the upper age limit for the Youth Court should be increased so that 18 -20 year olds could also benefit from the fast track approach and the additional interventions to address their needs in relations to offending. Some professionals also felt that some young people on indictment and petition could benefit from going through the Youth Court, unless their offences were so serious as to be destined for the High Court. One Sheriff also suggested that the wrong group was being targeted, arguing that it would have been more beneficial to target resources on 18 to 22 year olds who were regarded as more likely to exhibit problematic patterns of persistent offending.

3.6 Overall, the procedures for identifying potential Youth Court cases were believed to be operating efficiently and effectively. An initial difficulty with police officers undertaking cases for days on which the Airdrie Youth Court did not sit had been addressed through further training. The process of identifying potential cases generally was reported to benefit from a good working relationship between the different agencies concerned: police, Procurator Fiscal, social work and Reporter. A strength of the procedures was seen as the ability of the Procurators Fiscal to gain an oversight of the pattern of offending in any one case and to consider an offence in its wider context.

3.7 Where concerns about this stage of the Youth Court process were expressed, they typically centred around the nature and interpretation of the Youth Court criteria. For example, Sheriffs and social workers in Hamilton expressed some concern that the application of the contextual criterion was drawing in a few young people for first and relatively minor offences (such as breaches of the peace), though some other professionals defended the application of the 'contextual criterion' on the grounds that even first offenders could represent a threat to community safety on account of the types of offences (for example, carrying offensive weapons) with which they had been charged. For social workers, however, if young people had few social problems and were assessed as having a low risk of re-offending, it became difficult to identify points of engagement and a focus for intervention.

CASES REPORTED TO THE PROCURATOR FISCAL

3.8 This section focuses on the marking decisions made by the Procurators Fiscal in relation to 1,668 cases reported by the police in Hamilton and 2,236 in Airdrie. This analysis provides an insight into the criteria used in the marking of Youth Court cases by the Procurators Fiscal. Note that the totals upon which percentages are based may differ slightly as a result of missing data.

3.9 Of the young people (1668 ¹⁴) reported by the police to the Hamilton Procurator Fiscal until the end of October 2004, 45 per cent were resident in North Lanarkshire and 55 per cent in South Lanarkshire. Ten per cent of cases came from the police sub division serving the Bellshill area, 33 per cent from the sub division serving Motherwell and Wishaw, 22 per cent from the sub division serving East Kilbride and Strathaven and 34 per cent from the sub division serving the Hamilton area. Less than one per cent of cases came from other police areas. Two police sub-divisions serve the Airdrie court. In the 2,231 cases where a police reference number was provided, 1,445 (65%) were from the sub-division covering Airdrie and Coatbridge, whilst 783 (35%) came from the sub-division serving Cumbernauld. British Transport Police had referred 3 cases.

3.10 The majority of reports in both pilot areas (90% in Hamilton and 87% in Airdrie) featured young men. In Hamilton, 44 per cent of cases were aged 16 years, 46 per cent were 17 and 4 per cent were 15 years of age while in Airdrie 48 per cent of reports involved 16 year olds and 49 per cent were 17 years of age. Procurators Fiscal in Airdrie indicated that they would not mark cases involving 17 year olds for prosecution in the Youth Court if they would be 18 years of age when the case came to court. For example:

"Accused could not be presented in the Youth Court because just about to turn 18 and would not appear before his birthday."

3.11 In Hamilton, those outside the target age range (generally co-accused charged with a young person in the Youth Court age range) varied from 10 to 21 years of age (with half being 18 years of age) while in Airdrie they varied from 12 to 18 years of age. Across the 2 pilot sites all except one of those under 15 years of age (a case marked as 'no prosecution') were jointly reported and therefore discussed with the Reporter.

3.12 In both Hamilton and Airdrie the majority of youth prosecution cases marked by the Procurators Fiscal were citations (87% and 92% respectively). Seven per cent of those in Hamilton and 5 per cent in Airdrie were held in custody while 6 per cent in Hamilton and 3 per cent in Airdrie had been released on a police undertaking. In Hamilton 78 per cent of cases featured a single accused, while in Airdrie this figure was 88 per cent. The maximum number of co-accused in each area was 4.

Marking outcomes

3.13 According to the data provided by the Procurators Fiscal, in Hamilton 24 per cent of cases reported to the Procurator Fiscal that were marked met the persistency criterion and 30 per cent met the contextual criterion and 10 per cent met both. In Airdrie, 16 per cent of youth prosecution cases reported to the Procurator Fiscal involved 'persistent' offenders ¹⁵, while 14 per cent met the contextual criterion (according to which referrals could be made to the Youth Court if it would be appropriate in terms of enhancing community safety and reducing the risk of re-offending) ¹⁶and 10 per cent met both.

3.14 As Table 3.1 indicates, however, most cases reported to the Youth Court Procurators Fiscal were not marked for prosecution in either the Youth Court or another court. The most common outcome of marking was an alternative to prosecution (a fiscal fine or warning or, less commonly, a social work diversion programme). Overall 21 per cent of cases in Hamilton and 19 per cent in Airdrie were marked for the Youth Court with 7 per cent in Hamilton and 5 per cent in Airdrie marked for prosecution in a different court ¹⁷.

Table 3.1: Marking outcomes of cases reported by the police to the Procurators Fiscal in Hamilton and Airdrie

Source: Data provided by Procurators Fiscal. Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

3.15 As Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show, prosecution in the Youth Courts was closely related to whether a case was deemed to have met the relevant criteria. In both pilot sites cases were most likely to be marked for prosecuted in the Youth Courts if they met both the persistency and contextual criteria: 93 per cent of cases in Hamilton and. 90 per cent of cases in Airdrie that were considered to have met both criteria were marked for prosecution in the Youth Court. Discussions with the social work department about the case had occurred in respect of 85 per cent of cases marked for prosecution in the Youth Court in Hamilton and 90 per cent of cases in Airdrie. Fifteen per cent of Youth Court cases in Hamilton and 20 per cent in Airdrie had been discussed with the Reporter in accordance with the Lord Advocate's Guidelines ¹⁸.

Table 3.2: Marking outcomes by whether or not the case met the Youth Court Criteria (Hamilton, June 2003 - December 2004)

Source: Data provided by Procurators Fiscal Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

Table 3.3: Marking outcomes by whether or not the case met the Youth Court Criteria (Airdrie, June 2004 - February 2006)

Source: Data provided by Procurators Fiscal Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

3.16 When cases were marked for prosecution in the Youth Court having met the contextual grounds only, comments provided by Procurators Fiscal in individual cases suggested that these cases were often marked for the Youth Court for community safety reasons because, for example, the young person's offence was relatively serious, there was a pattern developing to the offending, or an offensive weapon was involved:

"This is an assault. It is a pretty serious assault and therefore I feel it meets the community safety criteria."

"Accused has offended twice in one month repeating threats of violence and vandalism to police. Threat to public safety."

3.17 Additional comments provided by Procurators Fiscal suggested that when a decision was taken to prosecute in another court, this was often because of the serious nature of the offending concerned:

"Too serious - potential high court."

"Too serious to place in the summary court."

3.18 In 44 per cent of Youth Court cases where the relevant information was available (52/118 cases in Airdrie) other reports had been 'rolled up' for prosecution. This is consistent with a relatively high proportion of those marked for prosecution in both Youth Courts being considered to meet the criterion of persistent offending.

YOUNG PEOPLE PROSECUTED IN THE YOUTH COURTS

Volume of cases

3.19 Information from the Youth Court database provided details of all young people prosecuted in the Youth Court by the Procurator Fiscal. In Hamilton between June 2003 and December 2004 there were 611 cases featuring 402 people. Prior to the introduction of the Airdrie Sheriff Youth Court, the Implementation Group predicted that around 150 young people per annum would appear in it. This estimate was informed by the numbers of proceedings taken against 16 and 17 year olds in 2003 in Airdrie Sheriff Court, the number of Social Enquiry Reports ( SERs) prepared for Airdrie Sheriff Court by North Lanarkshire Council and the experience of establishing a pilot Youth Court in Hamilton. In practice, the volume of cases dealt with by the Airdrie Youth Court has been higher than expected. Analysis of the Youth Court database revealed that it had 553 cases involving 341 young people during the period from its introduction to the end of December 2005. This is, on average, 5 more cases per month or 60 more per year than predicted.

3.20 Most accused had been prosecuted only once in the Youth Court but 28 per cent in Hamilton and o1 per cent in Airdrie had been prosecuted there on 2 or more occasions (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Number of individuals prosecuted by number of times prosecuted in the Youth Courts

Source: Youth Court database Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

3.21 Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the number of cases and number of first time prosecutions in the Youth Courts by month. In Hamilton there was a mean of 32 cases per month. The number of monthly cases has been higher since February 2004, peaking in August 2004 when 71 new cases appeared. In Airdrie the mean number of new cases per month was 28 ranging from lows of 19 cases in September 2004 and September 2005 to a high of 45 cases in March 2005. Over time the proportion of first time Youth Court prosecutions reduced (because more young people had been prosecuted in the Youth Court on a previous occasion) though they still made up the majority of cases.

Figure 3.1 Total number of referrals and first referrals to the Hamilton Youth Court by month, June 2003 - December 2004 (n=611)

Source: Youth Court database

Figure 3:2. Total number of referrals and first referrals to the Airdrie Youth Court by month, June 2004 - December 2005 (n=553).

Source: Youth Court database

Age and sex

3.22 The vast majority of young people prosecuted in the Youth Courts (91% in Hamilton and 88% in Airdrie) were male and were 16 or 17 years of age (76% in Hamilton and 87% in Airdrie). Seven young people in Hamilton (2%) and 6 (2%) in Airdrie were 15 years of age. Eighty-eight people in Hamilton (22%) and 40 in Airdrie (12%) were 18 years of age or older. The latter appeared in the Youth Court as co-defendants of young people in the target age range

Offending history

Age at first contact with the criminal justice system

3.23 From their Scottish Criminal Records Office ( SCRO) unique reference number it was possible to identify the year in which young people prosecuted in the Youth Courts had first been charged in the adult criminal justice system. The analysis here was restricted to those aged 18 or less on first appearance (18 year olds were included as they may have been in the target age group when first identified for prosecution). The relevant data are summarised in Table 3.5. They suggest that while many young people had had a relatively extensive history of involvement with the criminal justice system (in terms of the period of time that had elapsed since first contact) almost one quarter in Hamilton and one fifth in Airdrie had first come to the attention of the police within the previous 12 months. These data are consistent with the views of professionals that Youth Court cases contained a mixture of accused with and without prior police involvement, with the latter being referred on account of the risk they were deemed to present to themselves or others.

Table 3.5: Comparison of year SCRO number created and first appearance in the Youth Courts among those aged 18 or less (column percentages)

Source: Youth Court database Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

Previous convictions

3.24 Further details of previous involvement in the adult criminal justice system were available in respect of 369 young people who were sentenced in the Hamilton Youth Court between June 2003 and May 2005 and 117 young people sentenced in the Airdrie Youth Court between June 2004 and May 2005 ²⁰. This analysis revealed that almost 58 per cent of those referred to the Hamilton Youth Court had no previous convictions while this was true of almost three-quarters (74%) of those referred to the Youth Court in Airdrie ²¹. The high incidence of young people with no previous convictions is not surprising given the target age group for the Youth Courts. In Hamilton, however, a higher percentage of young people prosecuted in the Sheriff Summary Court were first offenders compared with the Youth Court (70% compared with 58%) while in Airdrie there were fewer first offenders prosecuted in the Sheriff Summary Court than in the Youth Court (61% compared with 74%). These differences in prior criminal history are reflected in different sentencing patterns between the Youth Courts and Sheriff Summary Courts (see Chapter 5) and suggest that there may have been differences across the 2 pilot sites in the types of cases identified for prosecution in the Youth Court by Procurators Fiscal.

Involvement with the Children's Hearings System

3.25 Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (S. 49 (3) (b)) the Sheriff is required to request that the Principal Reporter arranges a Children's Hearing to obtain their advice as to the treatment of a young person who is subject to a supervision requirement from the Children's Hearings System and who pleads guilt to or is found guilty of an offence. According to the Youth Court database, 45 cases prosecuted in Airdrie Youth Court involving 18 different young people featured a young person who was subject to a Supervision Requirement from the Children's Panel while this was also true of 22 cases involving 18 young people in Hamilton ²². All except 2 of those subject to such requirements (one each in Hamilton and Airdrie) were under 17 years of age. Just as the majority of those prosecuted in the Youth Court were male, most young people subject to Supervision Requirements (16 in Hamilton and 15 in Airdrie) were young men.

3.26 More detailed information about previous involvement with the Children's Hearings System among those referred to the Youth Court was provided by the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration ( SCRA) from the Referral Administration Database ( RAD). The relevant data were available in respect of 313 young people in Hamilton and 293 in Airdrie ²³. Table 3.6 shows that 56% of those aged 17 years or younger when prosecuted in the Hamilton Youth Court and 61% of those of the same age prosecuted in the Airdrie Youth Court were recorded as having had a referral on RAD²⁴.

Table 3.6: Young people aged 15 - 17 years prosecuted in the Youth Courts having a record / referral on RAD by age at first appearance and court (row percentages)

SCRASource: Data provided by

3.27 To explore why these young people had been referred to the Children's Hearing System, details of referrals which occurred up to the end of January 2005 were examined from RAD. To exclude from this analysis referrals that may have been linked to the operation of the Youth Court, 3 types of referrals were removed:

• referrals made jointly to the Procurator Fiscal and the Children's Hearing System, which had been retained by the Fiscal;
• referrals remitted by the court to the Children's Hearing System for disposal;
• referrals made on or after the young person's date of first appearance in the Youth Court.

3.28 As Tables 3.7 and 3.8 show, out of 342 young people aged 17 or younger on first appearance in Hamilton Youth Court, 36% had had previous referrals made to and retained by the Reporter. In Airdrie, the comparable figure was 46%. Thirty-five per cent of young people in Hamilton and 43% in Airdrie had at least one referral on an offence ground. Those referred on offence grounds in Hamilton had had an average of just under 8 referrals per young person while those in Airdrie had an average of just over 8 referrals per young person. This suggests that while some young people referred to the Youth Courts had no prior recorded involvement with the Children's Hearings System as a consequence of offending, a sizable proportion from both courts had between them a substantial record of previous offending.

Table 3.7: Young people who had had a referral retained by the Reporter before their first Youth Court appearance in Hamilton (June 2003 - December 2004) by reason for referral and age at first appearance (row percentages)

SCRASource: Data provided by

Table 3.8: Young people who had had a referral retained by the Reporter before their first Youth Court appearance in Airdrie (June 2004 - December 2005) by reason for referral and age at first appearance (row percentages)

SCRASource: Data provided by

3.29 As Table 3.9 illustrates, the majority of young people from both Youth Courts referred to the Reporter on offence grounds had on least one occasion been accused of a group 6 offence, most commonly a breach of the peace or an assault. Just over or under a third from both courts had on at least one occasion been accused of a crime of dishonesty (covering mainly thefts and attempted thefts), group 4 crimes (mainly vandalism) and other crimes (mainly possession of an offensive weapon, drug offences and resisting arrest). Referrals for the most serious crimes were, as would be expected, rare. Most of the offence referrals were not recent, with 36% of young people in Hamilton and 31% in Airdrie having been referred to the Reporter within 6 months or less of their first due appearance in the Youth Court. The average time from the most recent prior offence referral to first calling in the Youth Court was 322 days in Hamilton and 319 days in Airdrie (both around 11 months).

Table 3.9: Young people aged 15-17 years when first prosecuted in the Youth Courts having an offence referral to the Reporter by crime / offence type (column per cents)

SCRASource: Data provided by Note: Because a young person could have had a referral for more than one crime / offence type, percentages do not add to 100.

3.30 Children's Hearings had made continued Supervision Requirements for 66 youth court cases in Hamilton (19% of those that were aged 17 or under on first appearance in the Hamilton Youth Court) between RAD roll out in 2002 and January 2005. Ten of these young people attended a residential school while subject to a Supervision Requirement, 8 were resident at some point in a local authority home and 3 lived with foster carers. However, most young people had continued to live with a parent or other relative. Twenty-six young people's supervision requirements were ongoing at the time of first appearance (8% of the sample), including 5/7 of the 15 year olds. Thirty-nine had had their Supervision Requirements terminated before they made their first appearance in the Youth Court (most - 31 - having been terminated a year or less before) and eighteen others subsequently had their supervision terminated after appearing in the Youth Court.

3.31 Children's Hearings had also made continued Supervision Requirements for 44 young people in Airdrie (15% of those aged 17 or under on first appearance in the Airdrie Youth Court) between RAD roll out in 2002 and December 2005. Six of these young people attended a residential school while subject to a Supervision Requirement, 9 were resident at some point in a local authority home and 2 lived with foster carers. However, most young people had continued to live with a parent (35) or other relative (4). Thirty-seven young people's supervision requirements were ongoing at the time of first appearance (13% of our under sample), including 4/6 of the 15 year olds. Twenty-two had one or all of their Supervision Requirements terminated before they made their first appearance in the Youth Court (most - 17 - having been terminated a year or less before) and 7 others subsequently had their supervision terminated after appearing in the Youth Court.

Young people's perspectives on offending

3.32 Consistent with what we already know about the offence histories of young people referred to the Youth Courts, the interviews with young people indicated that some had been prolific offenders, some since they were aged 13 or 14, while others had become heavily involved in offending more recently ²⁶. A number reported (older) siblings or others they knew having been involved with the criminal justice system and some reported having attended a court to support a friend or family member. Much of their offending was related by young people to the misuse of alcohol and, to a lesser extent, other drugs. It included street crime ranging from vandalism to assault (commonly assaults involved fighting with other groups of young people). Some had been involved in car theft and related offences. A few had been prolific shoplifters (often related to their drug misuse). Some described their neighbourhoods as featuring 'gangs' and felt unable to visit or walk through certain local areas as a consequence. A few said they carried weapons for this reason. However, not all those interviewed had been 'persistent' offenders before coming to the attention of the Youth Court. First time offenders were not uncommon, some of whom admitted committing relatively serious offences (often again related to alcohol).

Social and personal circumstances of young people sentenced in the Youth Courts

Hamilton

3.33 Prior to sentencing, social workers in North and South Lanarkshire would prepare a Social Enquiry Report ( SER) for the Youth Court if requested to do so by the Sheriff. While SERs are required before the imposition of certain sentences (such as custodial sentences and probation orders) they are not mandatory in all cases (usually those involving less serious offences or offenders where a disposal such as an admonition or monetary penalty is likely to be imposed). Information was gathered from SERs prepared by social workers in one of the local authorities on the backgrounds of 106 young people sentenced by Hamilton Sheriff Youth Court ²⁷. It also draws, where relevant, upon interviews conducted with a smaller sample (28) of young people referred to the Youth Courts. This section summarises the characteristics of this group of young people, and thus is not representative of all the young people who appeared before the Youth Court.

3.34 According to the SERs, most young people (90 or 85%) lived in the family home or with other relatives (9 or 8%). One young person was statutorily accommodated, 3 young people lived in their own accommodation, one was living with friends and 2 had no fixed abode. Eighty-five of the 90 young people living in the family home resided with their mother while only 39 lived with their father. Forty-seven (43%) of the young people residing at home lived in a lone parent household, most of whom (43) resided with their mother. Whilst our interviews with young people were not focused on obtaining family biographical histories, a number of young people revealed that they had had very difficult upbringings, for example extensive familial involvement in drug misuse. From the description of the circumstances some clearly lived in poverty; many said they lived in neighbourhoods with a range of social problems.

3.35 For 91 young people information was available on when they had left school (2 others were still in schooling). Eighty-five (90%)had left school at the end of compulsory schooling (some young people had effectively left before this date as they had not been receiving any schooling). Sixty-four (60%) young people were reported to have had difficulties at school. These included: behavioural problems (41), truancy (29) and being the victim of bullying (9). Many of those recorded as having behavioural problems had served short suspension periods and reports indicated that 13 young people had been permanently excluded from a school at some point in their education. Twenty-one young people (out of 66) were recorded as having left school with no qualifications, while 36 had standard grade passes as their highest achievement and 3 young people had passed Higher examinations ²⁸. Forty-three young people were reported as being unemployed at the time of their SER, although most were reported in SERs as actively seeking employment.

3.36 Consistent with the information provided in interviews with young people themselves, the misuse of alcohol was highlighted in many of the SERs as either an ongoing problem or as a major factor in the criminal incident that had brought the young person to court. For each young person a judgement was made by the researcher, on the basis of the SER, as to whether (excess) alcohol consumption was reported in relation to the offence or alcohol misuse was an ongoing problem. Sixty-one Social Enquiry Reports (58%) mentioned alcohol in these contexts.

3.37 Forty-five young people (43%) reported to the SER author that they took drugs. For most of these young people (34 or 32%) this was limited to cannabis consumption. For some this was occasional use, however reports often recorded daily cannabis consumption. In 11 cases the use of other drugs was reported - ranging from the misuse of prescription drugs through to heroin addiction. Young people were reported to have mental health problems in 11 (10%) of the SERs reviewed, a few of whom had a history of involvement with mental health services.

Airdrie

3.38 Information was provided by North Lanarkshire Social Work Department in respect of 39 young people who had Social Enquiry Reports prepared for the Youth Court (35 male and 4 female) ²⁹. In terms of living circumstances, 72 per cent (28/39) were living in the parental home and 13 per cent (5/39) were living with other relatives. The other 6 lived in either supported accommodation, a homeless unit, a children's unit, a remand fostering placement, had their own tenancy or were homeless. Fifty one percent (20/39) were unemployed, 28 per cent (11/39) were in full time employment, 8 per cent (3/39) were in full time training, 8 per cent (3/39) were at college full time and 5 per cent (2/39) were full time mothers. The problems that the young people were identified as having at the point of sentence are summarised in Table 3.10. roblems relating to alcohol misuse were most common, followed by the negative influence of peers. Seven young people, however, had no problems identified when the SER was prepared.

Table 3.10: Problems identified at the point of sentence among 39 young people who had SERs prepared for the Youth Court in July - December 2005

Source: Forms completed by social workers

3.39 Information was also provided by North Lanarkshire Council in respect of 90 young people who received a social work disposal from the Youth Court. Information about the young person's living circumstances at the point of sentence was available in 54 cases. Most of these young people were living in the parental home (38 or 70%). The majority of the young people in respect of whom the relevant information was available were unemployed (34/59 or 57%), while just under a third (18 or 31%) were in full-time employment.

3.40 The problems that these young people were identified as experiencing at the point of sentencing are summarised in Table 4.6. In comparison with the earlier SER sample, the present sample had a higher incidence of problems, which is to be expected given that they had received a social work disposal (in most cases probation). Alcohol misuse was the most commonly identified problem, followed by drug misuse and anger management. One third of young people who had received an order from the Youth Court had no problems identified, though the extent to which this reflects missing data or an actual absence of problems cannot be identified. It should also be noted that most of these cases (21/30) involved individuals given community service orders or restriction of liberty orders where there would be no expectation of offending-related needs being identified or addressed.

Table 3.11: Offending-related problems identified in SERs resulting in Youth Court Orders (June 2004-December 2005)

s by North Lanarkshire Council SERSoucre: Information provided from * As more than one factor associated with offending could be identified, percentages total more than 100%.

Charges faced

3.41 Each charge faced by young people dealt with in the Youth Courts during the periods covered by the evaluation was coded using the Scottish Executive's standard crime and offence coding (2005 version). In Hamilton the 611 cases prosecuted in the Youth Court featured 1860 charges. Thirty per cent of cases featured one charge, 25 per cent 2 charges, 15 per cent 3 charges and 30 per cent 4 or more charges. The maximum number of charges in one case was 24. In Airdrie, 1369 charges could be coded in this way. Thirty-nine percent of cases involved a single charge, 25 per cent involved 2 charges, 14 per cent 3 charges and 22 per cent 4 or more. Here the maximum number of charges in one case was 20.

3.42 Table 3.12 shows the crime or offence category of the charges. The majority of charges in both courts involved other crimes (Category 5) and miscellaneous offences (Category 6). As would be expected for summary business, relatively few young people faced the most serious charges covered by Groups 1 and 2. However in Airdrie a significant increase in the proportion of offences coded as crimes of violence appears to have occurred after February 2005 since these accounted for less than 1 per cent of charges in the first 9 months of the court's operation. This may indicate that over time the Youth Court was dealing with more serious offences.

Table 3.12: Charges prosecuted in the Youth Courts by crime and offence categories (column percentages)

Source: Youth Court database Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 due to rounding

3.43 The percentages of young people who had been prosecuted in the Youth Court for charges in each of the standard crime and offence categories are summarised in Table 3.13. Seventy per cent of people in Hamilton and 75 per cent in Airdrie had been charged with committing a miscellaneous offence such as a breach of the peace. An offensive weapon charge had been laid at least once against 38 per cent of the young people in Hamilton and 13 per cent of young people in Airdrie.

Table 3.13: Percentage of people appearing in the Youth Courts who had at least one charge in the crime and offence categories (column percentages)

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 as young people could have charges in a number of different categories.

SUMMARY

3.44 Accused detained in police custody or released on undertaking were reported to the Procurator Fiscal by the police. In these cases and in cases where an accused had a possible citation to attend court, the Procurator Fiscal decided whether to prosecute and in what forum. When marking cases for possible prosecution in the Youth Court Procurators Fiscal considered whether cases met agreed criteria with respect to persistency of offending and contextual circumstances, though in Airdrie the persistency criterion was not formally applied. Procedures for identifying potential Youth Court cases were said to be operating smoothly as a result of good working relationships between the agencies concerned.

3.45 The majority of youth cases reported to the Procurator Fiscal were not marked for prosecution. Prosecution in both Youth Courts was most likely if a pattern of persistent offending was established and other contextual factors suggested that such a course of action would be appropriate.

3.46 During the period covered by the evaluation, the Hamilton Youth Court had dealt with 611 referrals involving 402 young people while 543 referrals featuring 341 young people had been made to the Youth Court in Airdrie. The volume of referrals to the pilot courts was therefore broadly similar. Most of those prosecuted in both courts were male, were 16 or 17 years of age and were referred on a single occasion.

3.47 Most young people (74%) had first come into contact with the adult criminal justice system at least 2 years before their first Youth Court appearance. Just over a third of young people prosecuted in the Hamilton Youth Court (35%) had had at least one previous referral to the Reporter on offence grounds. However, only 47 per cent of young people in Hamilton and even fewer of those in Airdrie (26%) had previously been convicted in an adult court, possibly reflecting differing application of 'persistency' criteria in the two areas. Compared to the Youth Courts, the proportion of first offenders was higher in Hamilton Sheriff Summary Court but lower in Airdrie Sheriff Summary Court.

3.48 For those cases for whom the relevant data were available, most young people who appeared in the Youth Courts lived with a parent and the majority were unemployed In many cases young people's offending was alcohol related or, less often, related to the misuse of drugs. The charges most commonly prosecuted in the Youth Courts included breaches of the peace, petty assault, carrying offensive weapons and possession of drugs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »